If the lesson of Watergate was “follow the money,” then the lesson of the Trump/Russia scandal may well be “follow the lies.” As Michael Flynn’s aborted sentencing hearing this week made very clear, he, like almost everyone else caught up in the Russia scandal, purposefully, knowingly did not tell the truth about contacts he had with representatives of the Russian government or its agents. The question is why? The nature of the contacts between the Trump campaign and a hostile foreign power, whatever they were, appear to have been so damning that many risked their careers, their reputations — and even their freedom — to hide it.
Flynn’s lies involve a series of phone calls he had in December 2016 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. President Obama in his final days in office sanctioned Russia for election hacking. Flynn told Kislyak that Russia should not escalate the situation and he urged that the Kremlin only respond in a reciprocal manner. Kislayk told Flynn that Russia agreed to “moderate” its response, but the Kremlin’s restraint was so out-of-character that it reportedly triggered the inquiry into Flynn’s contacts in the first place.
However, when Flynn talked to FBI agents sitting in his White House office days after President Trump’s inauguration, he “stated he did not have a long, drawn-out discussion with KISLYAK where he would have asked him to ‘don’t do something,’” the FBI agents wrote in their memo of the conversations. Flynn apparently told this lie with ease. The FBI agents noted that Flynn “did not give any indicators of deception.”
The Kremlin, of course, knew the truth. And that gave a hostile foreign power potential leverage over the U.S. national security advisor, less than a week into Trump’s term in the White House.
...
It’s hard to see all these Russia lies as coincidences, given the extraordinary help Russia provided to elect Trump — the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, the Wikileaks email dumps, the divisive social media messaging that, according to reports released by the Senate on Monday, reached millions of unsuspecting Americans.
Flynn’s case may suggest what Russia got, or hoped to get, in return.
Easing the pressure of U.S. sanctions was a key priority for the Kremlin, and Flynn’s conversation with the Russian ambassador left the impression that the incoming administration would be willing to do just that after the inauguration. Indeed, the Trump administration continues to soften America’s approach to Russia, as it did Wednesday when the Treasury Department announced plans to lift sanctions imposed on companies owned by Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch close to Putin who also happens to be one of Manafort’s former business partners.
The agents interviewing Flynn in his White House office pulled on a thread that may lead to extraordinary and perhaps criminal political offenses: an American presidential campaign and a hostile foreign power doing favors for each other. Flynn may have lied, almost reflexively, to keep the plot from unraveling.
One way or another, it will be the Trump administration’s lies about Russia that lead us to the truth.